Das Verfassungsgericht Indonesiens engte im August 2026 die Bestimmungen einiger gesetzlicher Regelungen ein, die die „Beleidigung des Präsidenten“..“und des Vizepräsidenten“ unter Strafe stellen. Die Regelungen haben ihre Wurzeln in der kolonialen Gesetzgebung, wurden unter Präsident Suharto massive zur Verfolgung Andersdenkender missbraucht, danach abgeschafft und in einer neuen Variante 2023 wieder eingeführt.
Amnesty International begrüßt die gerichtliche Einschränkung zur Anwendung, mahnt jedoch an dass das Gericht einem eigenen früheren Urteil widerspricht, dass eine Abschaffung der Regelungen zur Folge haben müsste. Auch sei die Regelung bedenklich, weil die kolonialen Ursprungsregelungen zum exklusiven Schutz des Königtums bestimmt waren.
Amnesty says Constitutional Court ruling on insulting president inconsistent
Media Indonesia – August 19, 2026
M Ilham Ramadhan Avisena — Amnesty International Indonesia (AII) believes the Constitutional Court’s (MK) ruling regarding the article on insulting the president and vice president still poses a threat to freedom of expression.
The organisation believes the court should have overturned the criminal provisions in their entirety, not just narrowed the number of parties eligible to file a complaint.
AII Media Manager Haeril Halim said the Constitutional Court’s latest ruling demonstrates an inconsistent stance in protecting citizens‘ constitutional rights. He noted that the Constitutional Court had a different track record when it overturned the article on insulting the president in the old Criminal Code (KUHP) in 2006.
„The Constitutional Court has been inconsistent in protecting citizens‘ constitutional rights to be free from the rubber [catch all] articles on insulting the president and vice president. In 2006, the Constitutional Court revoked the article on insulting officials from the KUHP, but now it’s licking its own spit [to recant] by parroting the DPR [House of Representatives]“, Halim said in a statement on Wednesday August 19.
This statement was made in response to Constitutional Court Decision Number 275/PUU-XXIII/2025, which partially granted the judicial review petition against Articles 218, 219 and 220 of Law Number 1/2023 on the Criminal Code.
In its decision, the Constitutional Court did not annul Articles 218 and 219, which regulate criminal acts of insulting the honour or dignity of the president and vice president. However, the Constitutional Court amended the provisions regarding who can file such complaints.
The Constitutional Court declared Article 220 paragraph (1) of Law Number 1/2023 conditionally unconstitutional if it is not interpreted to mean that prosecution can only be carried out based on a direct complaint from the president and/or vice president.
Therefore, family members, sympathisers, supporters, volunteers or third parties acting on behalf of the head of state are no longer able to file complaints regarding alleged insults.
Halim acknowledged that this limitation could prevent misuse of the article by parties not directly targeted by the action. According to Halim however, the decision does not resolve the main issue, as citizens can still be prosecuted if the president or vice president themselves report criticism deemed to attack their honour or dignity.
„However, space to criminalise citizens who criticise the president remains open if the president and/or vice president file a complaint with law enforcement agencies“, he said.
According to Halim, the Constitutional Court should take a stronger stance as an institution protecting freedom of expression. The failure to repeal Articles 218 and 219 in their entirety is considered to have left the space for freedom of expression in Indonesia to still face the threat of criminalisation.
He said that freedom of expression is a right guaranteed by national and international human rights laws, including the 1945 Constitution. This freedom, Halim said, can be restricted under certain circumstances, including to protect another person’s reputation. However, international human rights standards, he said, recommend that the protection of reputation not be pursued through criminalisation.
Halim believes that the use of criminal law against citizens‘ expression has the potential to instil fear in society. There is concern that this situation will cause citizens to remain silent and avoid criticising the government for fear of facing legal proceedings.
„This kind of criminalisation of space for expression will only create a climate of fear in society and is a repressive tactic to silence criticism in the public sphere“, he explained.
Aside from the issue of freedom of expression, Amnesty also highlighted the historical roots of the presidential insult provision. Halim noted that the article is linked to regulation left behind from the Dutch colonial administration that was used to provide legal protection to the Queen of the Netherlands.
According to Halim, the existence of a similar provision in the current Indonesian legal system is problematic in itself because the article is considered to have the potential to provide preferential treatment to those in power. It is also considered inconsistent with the principle of equality before the law.
„Aside from this, historically the article on insulting the president is a legacy of the colonial government. The Dutch used this article to protect the Queen of the Netherlands. It is ironic that the government still maintains this colonial-era article“, said Halim.
He added that the article on insulting the president has historically been associated with efforts to limit criticism of the government. Therefore, he believes that restrictions that only target the complaint mechanism are insufficient to ensure a safe space for public criticism.
The Constitutional Court’s decision on August 12 was the result of a judicial review of three articles in the new Criminal Code. In addition to determining that complaints must originate from the president and/or vice president directly targeted, the Constitutional Court emphasised that this mechanism constitutes an absolute complaint offense and that complaints can be submitted in writing.
Meanwhile, the petition to annul Articles 218 and 219 was rejected in their entirety by the Constitutional Court. The applicants previously argued that these two provisions represent a revival of the Dutch colonial-era lese majeste offense, granting legal privileges to those in power and contradicting the principle of equality before the law.
AII believes that simply limiting who can report a case will not resolve the issue. As long as the criminal articles regarding insulting the president and vice president remain in place, Halim believes the potential for criminalisation of public criticism remains open. (Mir/P-3)
[Translated by James Balowski. The original title of the article was „Amnesty Soroti Putusan MK soal Kritik Presiden“.]Source: https://mediaindonesia.com/politik-dan-hukum/923566/amnesty-soroti-putusan-mk-soal-kritik-presiden